Search results

The purpose of this study is to propose an alternative basis for calculating cultural distance scores using Schwartz's cultural values.

Cultural distance scores were calculated for 23 countries, based on the two most common measures of cultural difference (four cultural dimensions and Schwartz's 1994 culture level values), following Kogut and Singh's formula. Correlation analysis was used to assess the congruency between these two bases of cultural distance. In addition, their relationship with international trade figures was assessed, to understand how well each framework predicts the amount of trade between countries.

Inter‐country distances between 23 countries suggest that the two bases of cultural distance were not congruent. While the correlation between both cultural distance measures and international trade suggested a negative relationship, as expected, only cultural distance based on Schwartz's values was significantly related to international trade (p<0.05). It would appear that, at least in a trade context, Schwartz's values may play a more significant role than do Hofstede's dimensions.

To date, most cultural distance scores have been based on Hofstede's cultural dimensions. This paper provides the first analysis of cultural distance based on Schwartz's country level values. The paper shows that the two measures are not congruent and that, at least in the context of trade, cultural distance measures based on Schwartz's may be superior. Thus, researchers should carefully consider which cultural base is most appropriate for use in their study.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ongoing misapplication of the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture dimensions at the individual level of analysis in both research and teaching. It provides suggestions as to how these national level constructs might be used in analysis and the challenges such use presents to researchers.

The methodology used by Hofstede and GLOBE in their calculation of national culture dimensions is discussed together with the implications.

The consequences of the national nature of the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture dimensions are that the dimensions do not exist at the individual level. The paper explains why, in spite of this, the dimensions continue to be misapplied to individuals.

There are important implications for practitioners. The cultural assumptions often made about individuals in different countries based on the Hofstede and GLOBE dimension scores are invalid. Practitioners should not use national culture dimension scores in individual‐level culture related decision making.

The paper is the first that is focused on the invalid projection of national culture dimensions onto individuals and which highlights the origins and the ongoing nature of this problem.

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine, theoretically and empirically, the two time orientation dimensions – long‐term orientation (LTO) and future orientation (FO) – in the national culture models of Hofstede and GLOBE, respectively.

Following Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's past‐present‐future theoretical lens, the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO measures are analysed to understand the conceptual domain covered by these two dimensions. Next, the authors empirically examine the relationship of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO with secondary data from Hofstede, GLOBE, and the World Values Survey.

This paper shows that Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions capture different aspects of time orientation of societies. In particular, Hofstede LTO focuses on past (tradition) versus future (thrift) aspect of societies, GLOBE FO practices capture the present versus future (planning) practices of societies, and GLOBE FO values reflect societal aspirations and preferences for planning.

A specific implication of these findings is that the three dimensions of time orientation are not interchangeable since they represent different characteristics of societies. A wider implication for researchers is to ensure high level of precision in and congruence among construct labels, definitions and measures to avoid confusion and misapplication of cross‐cultural concepts.

In an increasingly globalized world, a clear understanding of societal time orientation will help managers deal more effectively with their counterparts in other countries.

The key contribution of this paper is in identifying and clarifying, both theoretically and empirically, the anomalies in the labels, definitions and measurement of Hofstede long‐term orientation and GLOBE future orientation national culture dimensions. It also shows a useful way forward for researchers on how to use these national culture dimensions to explain other phenomena of interest to cross‐cultural scholars.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify critical issues underlying the national culture dimensions of Hofstede and GLOBE, demonstrating their irrelevance to international marketing decision‐making.

In‐depth discussion of the theoretical and empirical logic underlying the national culture dimension scales and scores.

Hofstede and GLOBE national culture scores are averages of items that are unrelated and which do not form a valid and reliable scale for the culture dimensions at the level of individuals or organizations. Hence these scores cannot be used to characterize individuals or sub‐groups within countries. The national culture dimension scores are therefore of doubtful use for marketing management that is concerned with individual‐and segment‐level consumer behavior.

Researchers should be cautious in using the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture dimension scores for analysis at the level of individuals and organizations.

Hofstede and GLOBE dimension scores should not be used to infer individual/managerial and group/organizational level behavior and preferences.

The paper follows a recent paper in IMR which was the first to discuss the common misunderstanding of the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture scales and scores, and their misapplication at the level of individuals and organizations by scholars and practitioners. Here we further expand and clarify the issues.

Recent studies exposed serious issues with Hofstede's popular model of culture, especially his uncertainty avoidance (UA) and masculinity-femininity (MAS–FEM) dimensions. However those studies did not focus on work-related issues as in Hofstede’s research.

We followed Hofstede’s approach to his dimensions more closely than anyone before in a large cross-cultural study. We used data from the nationally representative International Social Survey Program (over 50,000 respondents from 47 countries), measuring work goals and work-related stress in a way similar to Hofstede's.

UA and MAS–FEM, as measured and described by Hofstede, did not replicate. They lack internal consistency and the items that target them are not associated with Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM indices. Instead, some of those items follow a very different and sound logic, invalidating Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM theories. Our study provides additional evidence that UA and MAS–FEM are misleading artifacts of Hofstede's IBM database, with no analogues outside IBM. An improved, recently reported version of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) replicated nearly perfectly, solidifying the validity of that dimension of national culture. A revised version of long-term orientation, called flexibility–monumentalism (FLX–MON) also replicated well.

We discuss lessons for the cross-cultural field, including cross-cultural management, as well as policy-making by national governments, to be drawn from the controversial story of Hofstede's model. We advise a stronger focus on empirical confirmation and replication rather than excessive faith in fascinating, yet unproven theory.

To avoid further confusion, we advise researchers, consultants and managers to reconsider the use of Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM and focus on the valid dimensions in the revised Minkov-Hofstede model.

A number of national governments recently launched large-scale studies of their national cultures, based on Hofstede's model. The goal of those studies was to involve culture in the design of social and economic development policies. Studies of this kind should be founded on empirically sound models or else they can result in the formulation of flawed policies.

This is the first study of large samples from many nations showing that even when Hofstede's method is followed closely by focusing on work-related issues, UA and MAS–FEM do not emerge from the data, and this is not because of data deficiencies but because the logic of UA and MAS–FEM is demonstrably flawed. Our study also demonstrates new methods for the replication of IDV-COLL and FLX–MON, though without claiming that they are superior to existing ones.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical and empirical comparison of four major national cultural value models for perceived corporate reputation (CR) of multinational corporations (MNCs) across nations: Hofstede, Schwartz, the GLOBE study and Inglehart.

Two consumer surveys on an MNC and on competitors in 25 countries in the year 2015 (n=20,288 and 25,397) were used for the first time to compare the roles of the cultural value models as antecedents of CR, using multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM), which disentangles the explained variances on the country level and on the individual level.

National culture is strongly attributed to individual CR perceptions of MNCs across nations. However, the four conceptual cultural value models explain the variance differently (46.2–84.6 percent) as do particular cultural value dimensions within each model. The results are stable for both surveys.

Novel insights into the roles of cultural value models are provided for international business research. For MNCs aiming to use their CR to attract target groups in foreign countries, this study identifies the most influential cultural value model and particular dimensions.

This study contributes to cultural research by deepening the understanding of the various cultural value models and their importance for MNCs. Moreover, the authors add to the CR research by providing new insights into perception differences and using the still novel MSEM.

Smart card-based E-payment systems are receiving increasing attention as the number of implementations is witnessed on the rise globally. Understanding of user adoption behavior of E-payment systems that employ smart card technology becomes a research area that is of particular value and interest to both IS researchers and professionals. However, research interest focuses mostly on why a smart card-based E-payment system results in a failure or how the system could have grown into a success. This signals the fact that researchers have not had much opportunity to critically review a smart card-based E-payment system that has gained wide support and overcome the hurdle of critical mass adoption. The Octopus in Hong Kong has provided a rare opportunity for investigating smart card-based E-payment system because of its unprecedented success. This research seeks to thoroughly analyze the Octopus from technology adoption behavior perspectives.

Cultural impacts on adoption behavior are one of the key areas that this research posits to investigate. Since the present research is conducted in Hong Kong where a majority of population is Chinese ethnicity and yet is westernized in a number of aspects, assuming that users in Hong Kong are characterized by eastern or western culture is less useful. Explicit cultural characteristics at individual level are tapped into here instead of applying generalization of cultural beliefs to users to more accurately reflect cultural bias. In this vein, the technology acceptance model (TAM) is adapted, extended, and tested for its applicability cross-culturally in Hong Kong on the Octopus. Four cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede are included in this study, namely uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, individualism, and Confucian Dynamism (long-term orientation), to explore their influence on usage behavior through the mediation of perceived usefulness.

TAM is also integrated with the innovation diffusion theory (IDT) to borrow two constructs in relation to innovative characteristics, namely relative advantage and compatibility, in order to enhance the explanatory power of the proposed research model. Besides, the normative accountability of the research model is strengthened by embracing two social influences, namely subjective norm and image. As the last antecedent to perceived usefulness, prior experience serves to bring in the time variation factor to allow level of prior experience to exert both direct and moderating effects on perceived usefulness.

The resulting research model is analyzed by partial least squares (PLS)-based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach. The research findings reveal that all cultural dimensions demonstrate direct effect on perceived usefulness though the influence of uncertainty avoidance is found marginally significant. Other constructs on innovative characteristics and social influences are validated to be significant as hypothesized. Prior experience does indeed significantly moderate the two influences that perceived usefulness receives from relative advantage and compatibility, respectively. The research model has demonstrated convincing explanatory power and so may be employed for further studies in other contexts. In particular, cultural effects play a key role in contributing to the uniqueness of the model, enabling it to be an effective tool to help critically understand increasingly internationalized IS system development and implementation efforts. This research also suggests several practical implications in view of the findings that could better inform managerial decisions for designing, implementing, or promoting smart card-based E-payment system.

Hofstede’s model of national culture has enjoyed enormous popularity but rests partly on faith. It has never been fully replicated and its predictive properties have been challenged. The purpose of this paper is to provide a test of the model’s coherence and utility.

Analyses of secondary data, including the World Values Survey, and a new survey across 56 countries represented by nearly 53,000 probabilistically selected respondents.

Improved operationalizations of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) suggest it is a robust dimension of national culture. A modern IDV-COLL index supersedes Hofstede’s 50 year-old original one. Power distance (PD) seems to be a logical facet of IDV-COLL, rather than an independent dimension. Uncertainty avoidance (UA) lacks internal reliability. Approval of restrictive societal rules and laws is a facet of COLL and is not associated with national anxiety or neuroticism. UA is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: importance of job security, preference for a safe job, trust, racism and xenophobia, subjective well-being, innovation, and economic freedom. The dimension of masculinity-femininity (MAS-FEM) lacks coherence. MAS and FEM job goals and broader values are correlated positively, not negatively, and are not related to the MAS-FEM index. MAS-FEM is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: achievement and competition orientation, help and compassion, preference for a workplace with likeable people, work orientation, religiousness, gender egalitarianism, foreign aid. After a radical reconceptualization and a new operationalization, the so-called “fifth dimension” (CWD or long-term orientation) becomes more coherent and useful. The new version, called flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON), explains the cultural differences between East Asian Confucian societies at one extreme and Latin America plus Africa at the other, and is the best predictor of national differences in educational achievement.

Differences between subsidiaries of a multinational company, such as IBM around 1970, are not necessarily a good source of knowledge about broad cultural differences. A model of national culture must be validated across a large number of countries from all continents and its predictions should withstand various plausible controls. Much of Hofstede’s model (UA, MAS-FEM) fails this test while the remaining part (IDV-COLL, PD, LTO) needs a serious revision.

Consultancies and business schools still teach Hofstede’s model uncritically. They need to be aware of its deficiencies.

As UA and MAS-FEM are apparently misleading artifacts of Hofstede’s IBM data set, a thorough revision of Hofstede’s model is proposed, reducing it to two dimensions: IDV-COLL and FLX-MON.